Some random dude promising to “donate from time to time” is not a valid business model.
A lot of people donating, while not spending that money on dumb projects, and worse exectutives is a valid business model. Mozilla just doesn’t want to do that, because they care more about their executives than they care about Firefox.
People underestimate the cost of building a fucking browser
The browser is built. I don’t want to see them have a gigantic development staff because further updates are just as likely to enshitify as to improve something.
Mozilla is a bizarre Matryoshka doll with a for profit company inside of the nonprofit. If anything, I believe this structure is responsible for Mozilla’s problems
It’s not as simple as just deciding to hire people at lower rates of pay.
Cost cutting is a tricky game. When an organisation is not on a positive trajectory, cost cutting has a very high risk of re-enforcing the underlying problems.
That’s not to say cost cutting isn’t a worthy objective, but it needs to be carefully considered.
If you want a CEO with the right skills and connections you need to pay.
Profit can be distorted based on how much employees are being paid.
They’re a “non-profit,” but their CEO makes millions of dollars per year. I’d say that’s a profit.
Believing otherwise is just falling for rhetoric that exists to take advantage of our naivete so people richer than us can be even richer.
Many of you will disagree with this (because you’re greedy consumerists), but their employees also typically don’t need to be paid nearly as much as they are. Their employees are also working to maximize profit, albeit from a different, less-effective angle.
Money brings out the worst in people. I don’t really value the input of people going to bat for the businessmen taking their money. Too often I see useful idiots proud to be ripped off and getting angry whenever someone points it out. It’s really the norm at this point, which is sad.
Sorry boss it’s kinda laughable to suggest they choose their own salaries.
Obviously it would be negotiated, with a panel overseeing the procurement and hiring process.
That panel has no interest in overpaying executives. Obviously they would pay just enough to secure someone with the right network and skills. Just because they earn more than you does not mean they’re overpaid.
I just wish one could donate to firefox development specifically. Then they could rid it of all the advertisement and tracking stuff.
Bless your heart.
They will do whatever they believe will maximize profit.
That is disingenuous.
People underestimate the cost of building a fucking browser, it’s not the equivalent of maintaining a array sort app on fucking github.
Some random dude promising to “donate from time to time” is not a valid business model.
I wish they’d strip down and just focus on the browser, but fund it HOW? Ads? Subscription?
The reason a lot of companies are doing AI shit is essentially RD shooting in the dark, hoping something will pan out.
You have to do this if you are a tech company and want to survive in the future.
It’s fun to meme on ai and but that shit is coming and pretending it doesn’t exist or has no value simply isn’t true.
So I ask everyone again, what business model exists for a software company to make money without ads or charging a monthly subscription.
A lot of people donating, while not spending that money on dumb projects, and worse exectutives is a valid business model. Mozilla just doesn’t want to do that, because they care more about their executives than they care about Firefox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software
Speaking of WIkipedia, https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports/
Patreon $1 a month?
The browser is built. I don’t want to see them have a gigantic development staff because further updates are just as likely to enshitify as to improve something.
Bless your heart.
If you disagree, I’ll donate $20 a month to you to do it better.
I thought mozilla was a non profit?
Mozilla is a bizarre Matryoshka doll with a for profit company inside of the nonprofit. If anything, I believe this structure is responsible for Mozilla’s problems
So the profit from the for-profit is passed up to the non-profit.
This is a really common organisational structure and not bizarre.
There’s loads of worthy criticisms to make of mozilla but this is not one of them.
Sure, whereupon the CEO alone can receive an 8 figure compensation package. That is not at all an issue to the viability of a non-profit.
It’s not as simple as just deciding to hire people at lower rates of pay.
Cost cutting is a tricky game. When an organisation is not on a positive trajectory, cost cutting has a very high risk of re-enforcing the underlying problems.
That’s not to say cost cutting isn’t a worthy objective, but it needs to be carefully considered.
If you want a CEO with the right skills and connections you need to pay.
Non profits do have corporate leeches too. The executives at Mozilla have executive salaries. That is, hundreds of thousands, or millions.
They don’t work out of the goodness of their hearts. And Mozilla has to find a way to earn the income to pay their bloated salaries.
Why would an organisation choose to over spend on executive salaries?
Obviously, it’s because thats what it costs to get people with the right skills.
Non-profit isn’t the same as not-for-profit
Take American Red Cross
They make bank on blood donations. Also, they take in way more than they put out.
The red cross fucking sucks too
I couldn’t agree more
This smells like BS.
Is mozilla non-profit, not-for-profit, or for-profit?
You dont really know do you.
“I dont like mozilla so ill just assume they must be profiteering assholes somehow”
“Its the vibe of the thing”
I only use Firefox. I’ve only used Firefox since 2000.
They, by their own statements, are a 501( C )3, which is a non-profit, not a not-for-profit.
Sit down.
You seem to be able to google “mozilla non profit” but unable to elucidate whether it is in fact a non-profit and why that is so.
Again, you’re offering hand wavy vibe based explanations as to why mozilla is “bad”. What exactly is the problem?
I have worked for non-profits.
They are completely allowed to make a profit.
You are mistakenly under the impression that I’m against Mozilla.
If you go back to my original comment, I merely explained what I explained here. Mozilla is a non-profit, not a not-for-profit.
You decided to take that as an attack on Mozilla, for some strange reason, and attacked me. I just turned that same energy back on you.
Did I ever attack Mozilla? Did you attack me?
Profit can be distorted based on how much employees are being paid.
They’re a “non-profit,” but their CEO makes millions of dollars per year. I’d say that’s a profit.
Believing otherwise is just falling for rhetoric that exists to take advantage of our naivete so people richer than us can be even richer.
Many of you will disagree with this (because you’re greedy consumerists), but their employees also typically don’t need to be paid nearly as much as they are. Their employees are also working to maximize profit, albeit from a different, less-effective angle.
Money brings out the worst in people. I don’t really value the input of people going to bat for the businessmen taking their money. Too often I see useful idiots proud to be ripped off and getting angry whenever someone points it out. It’s really the norm at this point, which is sad.
Calling whatever you like “profit” cant really be rebutted, it’s subjective semantics.
Yes CEOs are paid lots of money. Why would mozilla choose to over pay staff?
Are you really asking why would the people at the top of an organization choose to overpay themselves?
Sorry boss it’s kinda laughable to suggest they choose their own salaries.
Obviously it would be negotiated, with a panel overseeing the procurement and hiring process.
That panel has no interest in overpaying executives. Obviously they would pay just enough to secure someone with the right network and skills. Just because they earn more than you does not mean they’re overpaid.